Dear Friend of America's Survival,
Drudge has alway been left-wing. That's because it mostly links to liberal and left-wing publications. Drudge's old advertising rep, Intermarkets, rejected my ads about Obama's Marxist connections back in 2008. Kelleigh Nelson's article, "Drudge Sells Out Trump, Helps Democrats," is worth reviewing. Drudge has a new advertising firm that raises suspicions.
So conservatives are going for alternatives such as Whatfinger News.
Here's an article I wrote in 2008 about Drudge censorship:
How Matt Drudge Censors the News By Cliff Kincaid
At America’s Survival, Inc., we are continuing our public education campaign on the threats posed by communism and the United Nations. We expected opposition from the liberal media. But we are also running into a brick wall in the “conservative” media. The latest scandal is that both the daily and weekly editions of the Washington Times have killed our advertising drawing public attention to Matt Drudge’s censorship of our ads. That is, they refused to run our ads about the censored ads. Can it get any worse than this?
Our intention was to publicize information about Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist, and his associates, who included Barack Obama. Davis was a key member of a communist network in Hawaii that influenced Obama. One of our reports examined the communist network in Hawaii. The other report examined the communist and socialist network in Chicago. The lengthy reports are heavily documented, with exhibits from congressional hearings and testimony, and haven’t been challenged on factual grounds.
Can you believe censorship of this magnitude is happening in a constitutional republic with a “free press” in which the people are supposed to be informed and educated? When my group can’t even pay to get our information into the Washington Times and on the Drudge Report?
I had wanted to advertise our new reports on communism in Hawaii and Chicago on the Drudge Report. But our $5000.00 ad buy was rejected by Drudge himself. This appears to be part of a leftward drift on the part of Drudge, who has a rather idiosyncratic background and links to the homosexual community and Hollywood. One of Drudge’s apparent motives is to curry favor with Obama so that he can receive “scoops” from the campaign. Drudge, who is sometimes described as liberal or “libertarian” on some issues, may also personally favor Obama’s election.
Drudge’s rejection of the ads, on the grounds that they were “too controversial,” is laughable. He made his name and “reputation” on the basis of “controversial” scoops about Bill Clinton. The rejection of my ads is the latest evidence that Drudge, who is viewed by some as the most powerful journalist in America today, is moving into the liberal camp.
The Politico reported on June 3 that, “Matt Drudge has upended the conventional wisdom that he and his powerful online vehicle are stalwarts of the conservative message machine.” It said that he has been “trumpeting Obama’s victories and shrugging at his scandals.” The rejection of my ads is proof of the latter.
In terms of his coverage of the Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton battle, a senior aide to Clinton was quoted as saying, “It’s clear to us that Barack Obama has won the Drudge Primary, and it’s one of the most important primaries in this process.” In other words, Drudge favored Obama over Hillary and his selection of the “news,” as if he functions as a national assignment editor for the media, affected the outcome. The staffer said that “Drudge’s treatment of Obama could make the Illinois senator more electable in November.”
This appears to be what is happening. We, of course, don’t take a stand for or against a candidate; we only try to assure that fair and accurate information is presented about their stands on public policy issues. We have also published an analysis of media coverage of Senator John McCain’s positions, highlighting his objectionable preference for involvement in international alliances and U.N.-supported causes.
What I didn’t anticipate is the resistance I would get from “conservative” Internet sites and papers.
First, a popular “conservative” Internet news site killed a story about Drudge’s censorship of my ads. Then, the weekly and daily editions of the Washington Times insisted that I omit any direct personal reference to Matt Drudge in my submitted ads. They said they didn’t object to my references to the Drudge Report, only “Matt Drudge.” Of course, the Drudge Report is Matt Drudge, and his advertising representative personally informed me in a telephone conversion and an email that “the publisher” – that is, Drudge – had not accepted my ads. So the case is clear-cut. The decision was made by Drudge, not by underlings or the advertising agency.
But the Washington Times insisted that my factual reporting about Matt Drudge’s role in rejecting the truthful ads was somehow inappropriate. By insisting on changing the ad — using the term “Drudge Report” rather than the name of Matt Drudge – the Times had hoped it could collect my ad money while avoiding any perceived slight to Drudge.
Some might say that I should have compromised and eliminated the reference to Drudge personally. But the reference was truthful and I didn’t want to back down.
The Washington Times’ killing of my ads demonstrates that there is a desire by some in the “conservative” media not to offend Drudge because of the power he is perceived to hold and wield and because the Drudge Report maintains links to these sites and papers, generating traffic and profits for them. This seems to be an open secret. They want to please Drudge; otherwise, he may not highlight or even link to their stories and outlets.
“Drudge holds a grudge,” one advertising representative confided to me. This is the tip-off that running an ad critical of Drudge could backfire on a media company. So much for journalistic “independence” and the pursuit of truth.
The conclusion has to be, in an ominous development, that Drudge, who is now emerging as a key pro-Obama media voice, is dictating coverage and advertising policies by some influential “conservative” media outlets. This is terribly worrisome and a clear threat to freedom of speech.
I told the Times that I had documentary proof that Drudge personally rejected the ads and that they were acting rather silly. Their advertising representatives knew their bosses look silly. But they are prepared to look silly so they can maintain a friendly relationship with Drudge.